fonzip_events

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already convey readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=true. The description adds that deletion targets events and that status changes are possible, giving a little more concreteness to the destructive/mutating nature. It does not, however, describe cascading effects, irreversibility, authorization needs, or side effects beyond what the annotations imply.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single compact sentence that front-loads the main capability domains and avoids filler. While it is terse for a 49-parameter/12-action tool, it is not padded and reads quickly. It loses a point because it is a fragment and does not structurally reflect the action-based routing nature.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity, the description covers the main event lifecycle and ticket/sales domains, but it omits event querying/list/get operations even though the action enum includes list/get. With no output schema and only this high-level summary, an agent gets a partial map of the tool's surface; the schema fills in many gaps, so it is adequate but not complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema fully documents every parameter, including which actions each field belongs to and required markers (e.g., 'Zorunlu: delete, get, update, update_status'). The tool description itself contributes no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names the resource domain ('Etkinlikler' – events) and enumerates concrete operations: create, update, status change, delete, plus ticket definitions and ticket sales/details. This is more specific than the tool name and helps distinguish it from siblings focused on other fonzip areas. It lacks a crisp 'performs X to achieve Y' statement and reads as a fragment, so not a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No explicit statement of when to choose fonzip_events over alternatives. The domain is inferred from the name and the list of operations, but there are no exclusions, prerequisite conditions, or references to sibling tools. This is effectively no guidance for selecting between tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.